Furthur Compression of mp3

You could try converting them to Mp3Pro or even better, WMA9. I find that the WMA9 encoding gives the same results at lower bitrates too, so you could end up cutting a lot of flab for something that sounds just as good.

Can U pls tell me which will be fairly good convertor... for me to convert in WMA9 or mp3pro... Will they play in Winamp or Quintessential.
Can u also tell approx. what will be furthur compression as compared to mp3..

Thanx,,,

WMA9 can be played in all versions of Windows Media Player if you have the WMA9 codecs. The codecs will automatically be installed when you upgrade Windows Media Player to version 9 or 10.
The best program to convert audio formats from one to another is dbPowerAmp Music Converter (dMC) Download the program here.

*www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm

You can download the codecs for it (it supports only CDA, MP3 and WAV when you first install it) from here and then install them to convert to them. I would recommend using the WMA9 codecs for optimum compression that sound good even at lower bitrates.

*www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm

EDIT: Yes, they will play in all major audio players including WMP, Quintessential, iTunes, Winamp, take your pick. As for the level of compression, that really depends on how low you're willing to go on the bitrate. On an average I would say WMA9 would score about a 20% compression, and MP3Pro about 40% compression.

Hey buddy what about the Performance of Mp3pro.... out of these two what do u recommend me??...coz lil bit of quality can be adjusted but there would be no meaning in converting if the quality degrades... a lot..
One more thing... can i convert these files in Bulk or ill have to do it one by one...

Cheers...
Dipen

I would vote WMA9, maybe because I am just preferential to WMA9 over MP3Pro, even though MP3Pro does offer a really huge cut in file sizes when transcoding from MP3. Performance-wise, you shouldn't really see that much of a difference, but so far I've seen MP3Pro use more processor cycles than the other formats, but I guess that should be obvious.
The quality will not degrade a lot, in fact, it shouldn't sound ANY different. After all, if it did, then what's the point?
In the end if its file size you're worried about, pick MP3Pro, but if its a comfortable trade-off between size and quality and system overhead, pick WMA9. That's what I would pick.
As for the transcoding process, all you have to do is enable the Shell extension for dMC and all you have to do is open your music folder in Windows Explorer, select all files, right click and choose Convert To...
Of course, you can always open the dMC program and manually select the files too.

Hey...

there ... thankx a lot for ur good suggestion..... keep it up....

Cheers..
Dipen

OGGVorbis compresses more than MP3...and alos it's free.....

Yes, it does, and yes, its free, but in the end, you have to admit that WMA is pretty much the one widely used and played format after MP3 itself and doesn't involve transcoding the file and then downloading the codec every time you want to take it someplace else and play. And pretty much every single portable MP3 player also handles WMA, so that seems a better compromise between quality, size and compatibility. If file size was all he was looking at, like I said, he would be better off with mp3PRO, which boasts of a 20:1 compression ratio, and can pretty much be played back on any standard MP3 output stream without the need for an additional codec (installing the codec gives CD quality sound) at a slightly lesser quality. When it comes to sheer compression, mp3PRO beats anything hands down.

i thnk ogg is better then WMA in quality & occupies less size... every player supports also...

or u can simply lesse down the bitrate of mp3 file & can save it as mp3...u can use for that musicmatch,jetaudio 6.0 plus etc...
means convert mp3 to mp3,changing bitrate from 160 to 128 or 96 etc...it also lessens the size...

Dipen01 said:

Hi Friends...

I have nearly 30 GB's of mp3 on my 40 GB Hard-disk.. Its nearly occupying 75% of space.. which leaves me very less for other things...
I heard somewhere or One of my friends suggested that for music files (mp3 files), theres another format which is little bit better in quality and is also very less in size...
Is it true ..?? Pls.. explain if theres any other alternative for this.... Thankx...


Cheers...
Dipen

Click to expand...

I think it will take a lot of time to compress your songs
so better purchase a new hard disk with large data storage that can be useful to you than compressing your songs!!!
i have 70gb of songs including videos songs and around 30 movies
never think of compressing music files at all
why waste time and may be your collections may be worst!!!!!!after compressing!!!!!!
Just my view to you!!!!!!!!

parthbarot said:

i thnk ogg is better then WMA in quality & occupies less size... every player supports also...

Click to expand...

Every player supports .ogg? Hmm, I must be mistaken here. Can you name one commercial, popular Discman or solid state/hard drive based player that can actually play .ogg files?

i think he was saying abt Software Players....
But, now most of portable music players r providing support for OGG...like:-
Flash Based:-
iRiver
Samsung Yepp

HDD Based:-
Rio Karma
LG MediaGate
TEAC
JetAudio Divico

CD Based:-
iRiver iMP series
Samsung MCD

Apart from these, there r loads of players and also Car Audios, Hi-Fi components etc which play OGG Vorbis......
*wiki.xiph.org/VorbisHardware

I guess the question is : how many of them are available as mainstream products right here in India? I think we should look at the normal guy, not just at the premium segments where they can get top of the line stuff from outside the country or get it from the black market and have it go kaput in three months flat.
As far as I can see, even solid-state Flash based players haven't really taken off, leave alone the HDD based ones, so would it make more sense to get a few bytes lesser for a format thats supported only in the phoren stuff or a format that pretty much every single device retailing for less than 5k can play?

Hey Guys...

What do u think about these Codecs....

Mp4 Download [Formats .mp4, .m4a] newest mpeg standard (AAC)
Musepack Download [Formats .mpc, .mp+, .mpp] highest quality lossy codec at high bitrates


Lossless no quality is lost, like zip compression

Apple Lossless Download [Formats .m4a, .mp4]
Flac Download [Formats .flac, .fla]
Monkeys Audio Download [Formats .ape]
OptimFROG Download [Formats .ofr]
Shorten Download [Formats .shn]
Wavpack Download [Formats .wv .wvc]

Do u think any of these is better... than mp3 or WMA....

Cheers..
Dipen

You want to halve the size of the songs while maintaining a decent processor overhead and good compatibility, stick to either mp3PRO, WMA or OGG. Stay away from the others as much as possible. While some may offer good compression and DRM protection, many of the codecs are proprietary and wouldn't be supported outside the PC, (with the exception of the iPods and Sonys) forcing you to recode the files into MP3. Every conversion you make makes you lose more quality. Stick to MP3, mp3PRO, WMA or OGG.

I use aac, although I don't have a lot of sons, only 68, but I compressed them from 160 kbps mp3 to 96kbps AAC (.m4a) with quicktime

mp3 ->wave -> m4a to achive maximum quality

The quality is just like a 224 kbps mp3, I got more quality while less HD space used, I say convert all your mp3 collection to aac with ituens as it can convert many songs at ones, but with quicktime U have to manually select each

m4a can be played in winamp 5, & WMP10 if nero 6 ultra is installed, so no compatibility problem

What about carrying it around if you're not one the souls unlucky enough not to have an iPod?

gxsaurav said:

I use aac, although I don't have a lot of sons, only 68, but I compressed them from 160 kbps mp3 to 96kbps AAC (.m4a) with quicktime

mp3 ->wave -> m4a to achive maximum quality

The quality is just like a 224 kbps mp3

Click to expand...

How on earth can u get a 96kbps AAC encoded from a 160kbps MP3 to sound like a 224 kbps MP3???
and btw,isn't having 68 sons & compressing them,pushing it a little to far????

gxsaurav said:

I use aac, although I don't have a lot of sons, only 68, but I compressed them from 160 kbps mp3 to 96kbps AAC (.m4a) with quicktime

mp3 ->wave -> m4a to achive maximum quality

The quality is just like a 224 kbps mp3, I got more quality while less HD space used, I say convert all your mp3 collection to aac with ituens as it can convert many songs at ones, but with quicktime U have to manually select each

m4a can be played in winamp 5, & WMP10 if nero 6 ultra is installed, so no compatibility problem

Click to expand...

1. neither nero 6 nor QT pro r free...
2. when did ya get 68 sons??? u didnt even tell us...that's not good man....
3. how much disk space did u actually save by converting just 68 songs 2 a lower bit rate???

go for AAC (m4a) conversion using itunes. even at bitrates below 96kbps you get the quality of an mp3 of 160kbps